Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
Robert

Royal Navy 2nd and 3rd Phantom squadrons ?

Recommended Posts

I believe there was to be five in total to compensate for the different carrier maintenance cycle’s and cruises. Some would be at sea and some would stay in the U.K.. Rotating as needed. The initial order was for i think 140 F-4K’s. Im not certain which numbers they are? Nor am I an expert, But Wikipedia states they were to be a direct Replacement for the Sea Vixens. If you can find that out or if someone knows they will tell you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I believe there was to be five in total to compensate for the different carrier maintenance cycle’s and cruises. Some would be at sea and some would stay in the U.K.. Rotating as needed. The initial order was for i think 140 F-4K’s. Im not certain which numbers they are? Nor am I an expert, But Wikipedia states they were to be a direct Replacement for the Sea Vixens. If you can find that out or if someone knows they will tell you.

 

 

Per British Phantoms Volume 1, the original projected order of FG.1s was 200, dropping to 143, but after CVA-01 and her sister were axed in 1966, it was believed 55 aircraft would suffice for two operational and one training squadron, this to meet the needs of both Ark Royal and Eagle. No indication of the second squadron's identity, I fear...maybe 899? They flew Eagle's Sea Vixens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pure what if really, but I would think that it would be one of the previously disbanded Vixen Sqns that would have been used, 890 or maybe 893.  

 

The Fleet Air Arm tended to have a break between aircraft re-equipment and 899 would have been a bit close to change over with the Vixen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Robert said:

Looking at Thunder and Lightning  http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/history.php was there any talk of any other front line Royal Navy Phantom squadrons apart from 892 ?

 

TIA

Robert

43 and 111 Sqn RAF enough said!

Edited by Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As above it is pure whiffery.

 

However there were some brilliant FAA tail fins in the 50's and 60's so you could adopt any of those.

 

Don't forget that in that event 892 would not have been an Omega Flash as CVA01 would have been built.

 

I'd look at Scimitar and Sea Vixen squadron colours and exclude which ever ones were not used by Buccaneers.

 

I think the Yellow Eagles would have been 767's embarked colours.  So maybe using the logic that 767 would have been Eagle's squadron and that 892 would have been Ark's home squadron then the red fin flash with the Ark Royal crest instead of the Omega would have been possible?

 

Mailed fist on a Phantom looks good though.  

 

Maybe look at pre-Falklands Sea Harrier squadrons and use their fin colours?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, At Sea said:

I think the Yellow Eagles would have been 767's embarked colours.  So maybe using the logic that 767 would have been Eagle's squadron and that 892 would have been Ark's home squadron then the red fin flash with the Ark Royal crest instead of the Omega would have been possible?

700-series squadrons aren't frontline FAA units, generally. It's extremely likely Eagle would have embarked an 800-series squadron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Procopius said:

700-series squadrons aren't frontline FAA units, generally. It's extremely likely Eagle would have embarked an 800-series squadron.

Doh!  You are right, of course.  Silly me.

 

Still think the Eagles would have made it on to a carrier though...  too good a tail fin not to have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, At Sea said:

Maybe look at pre-Falklands Sea Harrier squadrons and use their fin colours?  

800 NAS was one of the Buccaneer squadrons although 801 and 899 squadrons could be an alternative option?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll play nicely now, seeing as this is pure Whiffery...

 

...I agree with @At Sea it is logical to suppose that any further FAA squadrons would have converted from Sea Vixens which gives you 890, 893 and 899 in addition to 892.  Given that 899 carried on flying Sea Vixens into the early 1970's I think you could discount them so logically, the other two sqns would've been 890 and 893.

 

As @At Sea also points out, 892NAS wouldn't have worn the Omega if CVA01 had gone ahead as it wouldn't have been the last squadron (which it turns out it wasn't anyway), so its markings would surely be based on it's Sea Vixen markings.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did this a while ago based on the cancelled batch.

15127378_1119922691419693_1748265133_o.j

15133807_1119922571419705_1209693436_o.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely, That's how I would have imagined they would look.

 

I fancy 'whiffing' one in all over Dark Sea Grey with smaller toned down roundels in the same way the post Falklands Harriers did.

Surely the Phantom's would have gone low viz by the early 1980's.  I imagine that F-14K would have been prohibitively expensive so I think that if we had gone down the CVA01 route it would have been F-4K until the late 1980's then F-18K's replacing the Phantom & Buccaneer fleet with one aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wez said:

...I agree with @At Sea it is logical to suppose that any further FAA squadrons would have converted from Sea Vixens which gives you 890, 893 and 899 in addition to 892.  Given that 899 carried on flying Sea Vixens into the early 1970's I think you could discount them so logically, the other two sqns would've been 890 and 893.

Umm, that would have been me then!

 

There was another second-line squadron that was slated to get the Phantom, and that was to have been 766 - flying ice cream cones anyone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 71chally said:

Umm, that would have been me then!

 

There was another second-line squadron that was slated to get the Phantom, and that was to have been 766 - flying ice cream cones anyone!

Umm, no, sorry, didn't read that far back, At Sea however wrote...

 

"I'd look at Scimitar and Sea Vixen squadron colours and exclude which ever ones were not used by Buccaneers."

 

Which is what made me think along those lines but it's nice to see there's some consensus on the matter.  I like the idea of 766NAS "Mr Whippy" markings on a Toom though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just it was 'zactly what I said in post#4.

 

No Vixen Sqns used Buccs, and since it was the Phantom that replaced that type and not the Scimitar, that is a bit of a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, At Sea said:

Lovely, That's how I would have imagined they would look.

 

I fancy 'whiffing' one in all over Dark Sea Grey with smaller toned down roundels in the same way the post Falklands Harriers did.

Surely the Phantom's would have gone low viz by the early 1980's.  I imagine that F-14K would have been prohibitively expensive so I think that if we had gone down the CVA01 route it would have been F-4K until the late 1980's then F-18K's replacing the Phantom & Buccaneer fleet with one aircraft.

Or to offer an alternative point of view, if the FAA's Phantoms were operating mainly in the air defence role would they have adopted a Medium/Light Sea Grey scheme like that worn by the RAF's Phantom force or an overall Barley/Camouflage Grey similar to that worn by 809 Squadron's Sea Harrier FRS Mk.1s when they deployed to the Falklands on HMS Illustrious at the end Operation Corporate ?

Edited by Richard E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard E said:

Or to offer an alternative point of view, if the FAA's Phantoms were operating mainly in the air defence role would they have adopted a Medium/Light Sea Grey scheme like that worn by the RAF's Phantom force or an overall Barley/Camouflage Grey similar to that worn by 809 Squadron's Sea Harrier FRS Mk.1s when they deployed to the Falklands on HMS Illustrious at the end Operation Corporate ?

I was assuming that there would never have been an Op.Corporate with CVA01 in play.

However assuming it still happens allow this roll of the dice: Given that the Argentine Govt. was looking as late as September 1981 at purchasing Vulcans, say they were successful and bought 5.

 

Imagine the Falklands played out with CVA01, Phantoms and Exocet armed Vulcans in Argentine colours.

 

The Royal Navy buy Grumman Hawkeyes from the US, Phantom's fly a CAP between the Argentine mainland and the fleet and the Vulcan + Exocet range means that the air battle happens well off shore, air superiority needing to be gained (or at least exhaust the Vulcan / Exocet stocks) over the whole region before the Task Force can move further south.

 

That probably would have taken the Southern winter and there would have been no landing until October 1982 at the earliest, by which time the Argentine Airforce are operating from Stanley.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, At Sea said:

I was assuming that there would never have been an Op.Corporate with CVA01 in play.

However assuming it still happens allow this roll of the dice: Given that the Argentine Govt. was looking as late as September 1981 at purchasing Vulcans, say they were successful and bought 5.

 

Imagine the Falklands played out with CVA01, Phantoms and Exocet armed Vulcans in Argentine colours.

 

The Royal Navy buy Grumman Hawkeyes from the US, Phantom's fly a CAP between the Argentine mainland and the fleet and the Vulcan + Exocet range means that the air battle happens well off shore, air superiority needing to be gained (or at least exhaust the Vulcan / Exocet stocks) over the whole region before the Task Force can move further south.

 

That probably would have taken the Southern winter and there would have been no landing until October 1982 at the earliest, by which time the Argentine Airforce are operating from Stanley.

 

 

 

Interesting scenario, the Vulcan had a superb high level performance (on old boss of mine who was a Javelin nav out in Singapore used to tell how the they could never get close enough to get  within shooting range of the Vulcans as they would just outclimb the Jav).  The Spey Phantom also lacked high altitude performance.

 

The question is, how effective would Exocets have been if launched at high altitude to keep out of the CAP's way, likewise, how good was the Skyflash at intercepting a target flying at twice the altitude of the launch aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry OP.  This has gone well off topic. :mellow:

 

I guess the Exocets would need to be launched at low level, so the work of the Hawkeye and Phantom's would be to deny that environment to the Vulcans.

 

If I were an Argentine air planner I'd fit the Exocet underwing as the Shrike missiles were and put fuel cells in the bomb bay of the Vulcan.  The range would then be sufficient to play havoc with the Task Force as the air threat environment would be much further north and therefore harder to police. 

 

The County Class and Type 42's had a hard enough job as it was with Super Etendards buddying.

 

Bloody good job they were unsuccessful, however as with any weapon system buying it is one thing, operating it to maximum benefit is quite the other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, At Sea said:

Lovely, That's how I would have imagined they would look.

 

I fancy 'whiffing' one in all over Dark Sea Grey with smaller toned down roundels in the same way the post Falklands Harriers did.

Surely the Phantom's would have gone low viz by the early 1980's.  I imagine that F-14K would have been prohibitively expensive so I think that if we had gone down the CVA01 route it would have been F-4K until the late 1980's then F-18K's replacing the Phantom & Buccaneer fleet with one aircraft.

 

The cost of the airframes for an F-14K program would have been just one of the problems: CVA-01 would have at best struggled in operating the Tomcat, a type that was not deployed operationally from the modernised Midway class carriers, ships that were larger than CVA-01. I suspect that CVA-01 would have not been capable of operating Grumman's big cat

In a whif world where the FAA operates Tomcats, they also need a new carrier in the same cathegory of the US supercarriers

 

 

5 hours ago, Richard E said:

Or to offer an alternative point of view, if the FAA's Phantoms were operating mainly in the air defence role would they have adopted a Medium/Light Sea Grey scheme like that worn by the RAF's Phantom force or an overall Barley/Camouflage Grey similar to that worn by 809 Squadron's Sea Harrier FRS Mk.1s when they deployed to the Falklands on HMS Illustrious at the end Operation Corporate ?

 

Such a scheme would have likely been tested. It's interesting that when this scheme was introduced on the Sea Harrier it was found to be too light and the overall DSG scheme replaced it. The FA.2 however operated in an overall MSG scheme, that is better suited to higher altitudes. The Phantom may have well retained the lighter scheme from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×